Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Sorry dude, you obviously don't get it or don't want to admit you're wrong. That's cool, but I've made my point, thoroughly trounced your counter-arguments, and if you're having trouble understanding by all means re-read my previous posts. I don't know how many times I can explain to you this isn't about irrational fears or psychological issues, and frankly speaking, your attempts to keep using those accusations as a crutch to prop up your crumbling argument is getting sad. I think we've established you don't want to see the status quo change because it'll mess with your style of risk-averse AFK game play. If you were actively playing the game instead of camping a system while AFK you'd realize its not such a big deal to occasionally hit F1 when you've been de-cloaked.

The Observation Array will hopefully fix the current very broken game mechanic of cloak = practical invulnerability.

Fly safe!*

(* you're probably AFK and cloaked right now so you're 100% safe, but you get what I'm saying.)

This is a false equivalence. Wormholes are a vastly different ecosystem from Null and stating otherwise is, at best, ignorant.

Just to list a few key differences:

• There are no cynos in Wormholes
• There is no local in wormholes for the AFK cloaker to affect gameplay with
• The majority of PvE in a wormhole is done in groups which mitigates the effect a single cloaked ship can have

However, removing local from Null would not remove the threat of AFK cloaked ships, it would exacerbate it because now you don't even know that they're there so you can avoid them or try to bait them. It also doesn't remove the major threat of a cloaked ship which is a Cyno drop.

In a Wormhole cloaked ships with probes are still a threat but since they absolutely have to deploy probes to find you (no warping from belt to belt) there is some warning, and they have to bring in reinforcements through a wormhole which you can watch.

In short, stop saying AFK cloaking isn't a problem because Wormhole players aren't complaining about it. I could have said the same thing about, say, Titan-blapping and the argument would be just as relevant there as it is here. (just in case anyone missed it there is no way to get a Titan into a Wormhole)



They present a clear and present threat which the player is either forced to react to (generally by docking up since no other immediate counter-play is currently available) or, if the player does not react, wait until the enemy player can pick an engagement entirely on their terms at a time of their choosing all while completely immune to any sort of active counter-play.

No, this is not like docking up. When docked up you have one active gameplay option, which is to undock. While cloaked you can scan, you can probe, you can move around in space, and you can pick when and where to engage other players with complete impunity.

Saying a player "CANT TOUCH YOU" with a cloak active is like saying a player can't touch you without turning their guns on. Technically true, but practically speaking it's completely irrelevant.

In-fact, lets run with that analogy a little. Piracy is a well established Eve gameplay mechanic, as is the associated ransom demand. If a pirate gang has caught and pinned down a mark but have not actually activated their guns on him or her, then they can't actually touch the player without doing so. However, the threat of them doing so is enough to generate gameplay. Namely the ransom demand and associated negotiations and other gameplay. In this case a threat, rather than baked-in game mechanics, is allowing another player to interact with you without using strict baked-into-code game mechanics, and speaking entirely in terms of those mechanics is ignorant at best and willfully derailing the discussion at worst.

Does that cover it?

So, I think the Devs understand that people are concerned about AFK cloaking, on both sides of the debate. Back to productive discussion about mechanics and potential implementation of those mechanics related to OAs and Gates?

Even that is greatly limited now (with a couple of exceptions (blops and something I've forgotten) ) due to new jump range limits making map stats very valuable. Takes a minute or two to bomb over in an interceptor and see if people are huddled in scary ships. Watchlisting titan pilots helps as well.

I used to rat in an area filled with known droppers but with judicious use of map stats and an alt to check out discrepancies it was very hard to get caught and dropped.

The careless die.

The fuss against AFK cloaking is not about wether they can harm you directly or not, and not everything in EVE is about personal gratification and rewards.

On one side, and it has been repeated at lenghts in this thread, afk cloaking is a valid gameplay for system denial, and for hurting the income generated by an opposing corporation. CCP themselves have also presumibly stated, that afk cloaking is more or less the best way to reduce the oppositions income. I have not heard whether they think the tactic is good or bad, so I suppose that is still up for debate. But basicly, CCP confirm that they know about it, and they let it stay since it has an effect on the world that they are comfortable with.

On the other side CCP also say, and I quote this blog in regards to 'skynet': "We also want to promote active gameplay as much as possible." Since CCP agree that afk cloaking is having an effect on the world, then they also agree that someone is making that effect by doing nothing. They are in other words supporing a type of gameplay that encourages inactivity, and that is a direct opposite to what they want to promote. This is why I feel it needs to be adressed.

A player that is afk can not touch you, that is very true. But saying that they can't hurt you, is false.

You're quite correct that an AFK cloaker is useless as a threat without some indication of his presence, but I think WH players would be significantly more against the lack of counter-play to cloaky gameplay if it meant the enemy's Dreads and Carriers just suddenly appeared on grid, with no counter-play available, in force rather than having the current chess game of logistics that characterizes Wormhole invasions due to the nature of Wormholes and their mass limits (among other things).

In short, removing Local from Null would not remove the problems with cloaking and a lack of counter-play, it would just remove the ability to threaten players with AFK cloaking and trade it for an almost complete lack of warning when a cloaked player drops in next to you, points you, and lights off a Cyno. Personally I find that to be just as undesirable a dynamic as the current AFK cloaking situation, though I'm sure the droppers would love it.

As for group play in Null vs Wormholes. In a C4 and higher Wormhole groups of ships are almost required to complete any of the available PvE content, and 100% required for maximum value in Capital Escalations. In contrast players have spent the last ~10 years coming up with ways to do Null Sec PvE content in progressively smaller and smaller groups for increased personal profit, to the point where you can solo a good percentage of Null sites in a T3, HAC, or at worst a Carrier. You might call that foolish or their own choice of risk vs reward, but you absolutely can't say it's not relevant. That's how a lot of people play in Null and that should be taken into account when balancing things. Even if activity per system shoots up in the new Sov system it's likely to be a bunch of people ratting or running sites solo or in small groups, not everyone bunched up together because that's not what is required to complete Null PvE content.



Except that our point is that someone who is cloaked up and AFK is invulnerable to counter play. The only thing you can do to hurt them, short of trying to wait out someone with literally infinite patience (because they could be asleep for all you know) is deny them a kill by going somewhere else, and that's letting them affect your game for no cost or risk to them.

The request here is simple, give cloaky gameplay some counter-play associated with it so that AFK cloakers (and other cloakers in my opinion) have to exercise a degree of risk for the impact they have and the benefits they reap.

This is not "making Null safer" since you still need to go and engage the cloaky player to kill him, and if he hot-drops your gank attempt then *someone* is going to die immediately, as opposed to a guy who just sits AFK cloaked in a system for three days to eventually gank a single ratting Carrier or Battleship.

If they don't go fight the cloaker then he remains a threat and you should have no problem with that. The point here is to give players a tool to actively counter AFK cloaking gameplay, which will (by definition) create conflict.

I'd also like to address this bit specifically: "As mentioned it is ALREADY almost impossible to catch someone paying attention."

Now, go check Eve-Kill for kills in Null Sec with rats on the damage log. Go ahead, I'll wait. Quite a few aren't there. So either a lot of people don't pay attention, or your assumption is faulty. Either way there are plenty of people dying in Null, both with and without cloaky ships on the kill-mail.

Besides, your argument here is self-defeating. Not two posts ago you say that cloaked ships are no threat, and yet here you're saying that removing AFK cloaking makes Null safer. Which is it? Are they a threat or aren't they?

Besides that any safety in Null is purely the result of players taking steps to protect their assets. Players have made Null what it is and I don't think it's unreasonable to say that without the degree of safety that does exist Null would have a fraction of the population it currently has because the rewards wouldn't be worth the risk.

The entire idea that Null is "safe" is demonstrably false, any accurate kill-board shows that clearly. Which means that your definition of "extremely hard to lose a ratting ship" seems to lie under the presumption that it would be good for the game if it were easy to lose more ISK trying to rat in Null than you make doing so. Since that's a ridiculous suggestion I'm left wondering what, exactly, your problem is with either cloaking or the current state of the game in Null.

It seems to me you don't care to risk your ship fighting someone who might actually shoot back and feel that anyone engaged in money-making activities in Null should be a "free kill" if you put in any amount of effort at all.

You are missing the point where many null residents are ok with giving delayed local with the upcomming changes, they are only asking for a way to hunt the hunter as up until now had a free pass in null.

And that's fine - my fundamental contention since page 1 has only been for it not to get SAFER as a result of these changes.

edit: And for gates not to become massive fatigue avoidance mechanisms.

And I've never understood why people buy code permits, but you can't fix stupid.

You lost me at freighters getting killed when flown competently. Sorry.

Scout. Webs. Home free, every time, without fail. Even the gankers will tell you this!



Cloaking only even exists as a form of psychological warfare because of local. Further I don't think you understand the difference between decisions a pilot makes borne out of fear vs things forced upon them, by mechanics. It's EXACTLY like the whole permit nonsense.

So on that basis we should probably stop, but try and remember it's a new world now - you're not getting dropped from the other side of the galaxy - so look at map stats, check out recent kills, know the bridgers, know the cyno alts and the passers by, keep an eye on intel for other people being attacked via cynos as then you have the fatigue window to not worry about that group, rat as a team...hell the list is pretty enormous (and ironically every high sec survival tip is valid)....but it's all little details like this which allow you to bash on even if the dreaded red is in system. Or you can let that guy ruin your entire evening, I know what I do.

PS: Domis are still selling for 100% of insurance....unless you're losing ships literally hand over fist and the insurance cost is kill you....I can't fathom how you couldnt make it work.